BHANWAR LALJI PARASMAL MALI,BANGLORE vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), BANGLORE

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, बेंगलुरू पीठें, बेंगलुरू INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE BENCH: A BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 113/Bang/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) BHANWAR LALJI ITO PARASMAL MALI WARD 1(2)(1) 92 SURYA BUILDINGS BMTC BUILDING EBRAHIM SAHEB STREET 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BANGALORE, Vs. BLOCK KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560001, BENGALURU-560095, KARNATAKA KARNATAKA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AISPM0528K

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Cuddapah Ramesh CA प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Sri. Venkatesh V, Addl CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 05-Aug-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 21-Oct-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

1) The Assessee appeals against the order dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center [NFAC], Delhi [the learned CIT- A], for assessment year 2017-18. The learned CIT-A dismissed the Assessee's appeal against the assessment order dated 18th December 2019 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer.

2) The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

i. The Learned CIT Appeals has erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the assessing officer which is bad in law.

ii. The Learned CIT Appeals has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had agricultural income which is exempt but the same has been brought to tax.

iii. The Learned CIT Appeals has hurriedly passed the appellate order without extending the sufficient opportunity in the interest of natural justice.

iv. The Assessee submits that his father was seriously ill and the assessee was busy in medical treatment of his father and hence could not reply within the due date.

v. An attempt was made on 26.11.2025 to file reply but the portal was closed.

vi. The Assessee humbly prays for fresh opportunity to substantiate the grounds by remanding the case back to the assessing officer/CIT Appeals.

3) The Assessee, an individual, filed his return on 14th March 2018, declaring total income of ₹16,22,880. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 16th August 2018 selected the case for scrutiny to verify the agricultural income claimed as exempt. The Assessee did not respond to several notices or a reminder, nor furnish details of his agricultural landholding, crops, yield, or bills and receipts for the sale of produce. The Assessing Officer therefore treated the declared agricultural receipts of ₹60,12,540 as unexplained money under section 69A and applied section 115BBE. By an assessment order dated 18th December 2019 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, the total income was assessed at ₹76,35,420 against the returned income of ₹16,22,880.

4) Aggrieved, the Assessee appealed to the learned CIT-A, who condoned the delay in filing and decided the appeal on merits. Despite six notices, the Assessee made no submissions other than requests for adjournment. The learned CIT-A concluded that the Assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal and also confirmed the addition on merits. The Assessee has challenged that order before us.

5) At the hearing, the learned counsel, Shri Cuddapah Ramesh, Chartered Accountant, sought an adjournment. As both the assessment and appellate orders had been passed ex parte, the Bench rejected the request and asked whether he agreed to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the agricultural income exemption claimed. He agreed, and the appeal was taken up for hearing.

6) The learned authorised representative explained, as stated in the grounds of appeal, that the Assessee could not attend to his income-tax matters because his father was seriously ill, resulting in ex parte orders before both the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT-A. He has also stated that when the SSC tried to file the reply the portals were closed before the learned lower authorities and therefore he could not findWe find that this constitutes sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices. In fairness, the Assessee deserves another opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.

7) The learned Departmental Representative, Shri Venkatesh V, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that, despite several opportunities, the Assessee had produced no evidence to establish the genuineness of the agricultural income. As scrutiny was initiated solely to verify that claim, the Assessee's non-appearance left the authorities with no alternative but to make the addition. He therefore opposed granting another opportunity, as the Revenue had already provided several.

8) We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The Assessee claimed exempt agricultural income of ₹60,00,000 in his return but did not respond to notices from the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT-A. Consequently, the assessment was completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, and the learned CIT-A confirmed the addition, concluding that the Assessee did not intend to pursue the appeal.

9) At the hearing, remand to the Assessing Officer was proposed to allow the Assessee to substantiate the agricultural income exemption claimed in his return. The burden of proving that the income is agricultural rests on the Assessee. As he did not appear before the lower authorities, we restore the entire issue to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. The Assessee shall furnish details of the agricultural landholding, crops grown, cultivation methods, sources of seeds, records of agricultural expenditure, and sales, including the parties involved and places of sale. He shall also produce supporting third-party evidence from the agricultural department and sellers, without which the claim is difficult to accept. The Assessing Officer shall verify these details, re-examine the issue after giving the Assessee an opportunity of hearing, and determine and assess the income accordingly.

10) Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits, we allow ground No. 3 and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer.

11) In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is Allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- SOUNDARARAJAN K. PRASHANT MAHARISHI JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore Dated: 21.10.2026 *TNTS* Copy to:

BHANWAR LALJI PARASMAL MALI 92 SURYA BUILDINGS 1 EBRAHIM SAHEB STREET BANGALORE, BANGALORE-560001, KARNATAKA ITO WARD 1(2)(1) BMTC BUILDING 2 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORMANGALA BENGALURU-560095, KARNATAKA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE CIT(APPEALS) 5 THE D.R., ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH BY ORDER

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., BANGALORE

Digitally signed P G by P G RAJANI Date: RAJANI 2026.10.30 16:35:43 +05'30'